Comparing business faculty's salaries by rank and
gender: does AACSB accreditation really make a
difference?

Abstract:

Data made available to the public through the Missouri Secretary of
State's Office, via its website, was used to test for differences
in salaries as a hygiene factor among business faculty teaching at ten
Missouri State funded universities. One-Way ANOVA tests showed means
differed significantly between gender and among ranks, with p

Article Type:

Report

Subject:

Business teachers
(Compensation and benefits)
Business teachers
(Licensing, certification and accreditation)
Professional development
(Methods)
Accreditation (Education)
(Influence)

Once collegiate business schools have achieved accreditation
recognition through the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International (AACSB), there is the burden of proof for
maintaining the more rigorous standards imposed on the academic program
offerings. One of the hardest things for business school deans--and
their department heads--to do is not dissatisfy their faculty members, a
factor, arguably, that is directly related to the production of
intellectual contributions of a reasonable (measureable) quantity and
quality.

Frederick Herzberg was a psychologist whose writings popularized
"enrichment theory." We know from Herzberg, Mausner and
Snyderman (1959) and Herzberg (1964) that motivation and dissatisfaction
are different factors. Herzberg (1964) included salary among the list of
hygiene factors, i.e., fringe benefits, status, job security, and
salary. These factors do not cause positive satisfaction, but their
absence results in dissatisfaction. Herzberg used the term
"hygiene" within the context of human motivation and job
enrichment. He surmised, correctly, that factors at work that motivate
people are different and not simply the opposite of the factors that
dissatisfy people. Therefore, it is easy to construe from this theory
that a faculty member can be not "dissatisfied" with salary
but also not necessarily "motivated" or "satisfied"
with the work he or she does in general. (1964)

This is often the case with tenured faculty members (who already
have job security and status hygiene) but whose ICs are so low that they
cannot be classified as professionally qualified (PQ) or academically
qualified (AQ) by even the most liberal standards. They seem perfectly
satisfied doing the mundane and, with very moderate, if any annual pay
increases. Thus, it is possible to hypothesize that since AACSB is
imposing higher standards, one of which is a financial commitment from
administration, including university presidents, that AACSB accredited
business schools should be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status
(rank), and security (tenure). We can surmise in most cases that annual
merit pay increases, tenure appointments, and promotion through the
ranks will include considerations of a faculty member's research
productivity, especially at AACSB accredited business schools.

Anyone chairing a faculty development committee knows all about the
proof required from faculty members on the tenure-track or those up for
post-tenure review; they must submit to the committee their dossiers
including peer reviewed publications, peer-reviewed proceedings, peer
reviewed paper presentations, and other intellectual contributions. What
business schools are doing to make continuous improvements on
"closing the loop" on weaknesses in their
programs--accomplishments consistent with the standards that must be
documented year-to-year in annual maintenance reports--is essential to
maintaining AACSB accreditation.

Faculty members' intellectual contributions are the
justification for graduate programs in many cases, even at business
schools whose missions are primarily teaching. Nonetheless, all-to-often
schools of business have limited resources and a host of budget
constraints that directly affect the salary hygiene factor that directly
impact faculty members' intellectual contributions, i.e., money for
conference travel, publication and pages fees reimbursed, sponsoring
symposiums, and special incentives for publishing in top-tier journals.

Are these AACSB accredited business schools using salary and
promotion to quash dissatisfaction among the ranks and between genders?
We wanted to know that since AACSB imposes more rigorous standards on
the business schools it accredits and whether these AACSB business
schools also provide more stable salary, security, and status as hygiene
across rank and gender.

AACSB RELATED LITERATURE

Studies abound about the need for research and publishing in
colleges of business nationwide. This is most evident in schools which
are accredited or seeking initial accreditation as well as for
maintenance of their accreditation status. AACSB states in its white
paper that faculty should be "active scholars through their
research and other development activities that support the maintenance
of their intellectual capital in the teaching field." (2006, p.1)
The Association further reports that faculty members who are actively
engaged in research are more likely to remain current in their teaching
discipline and that, in turn, results in enhanced teaching effectiveness
and student learning (AACSB, 2008). This result does not resonate with
most academicians. Although the idea that research enhances teaching is
popular, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim per
Gibbs (1995). Faculty members in teaching institutions who are pressured
to do research continually tend to put less emphasis on teaching. (Marsh
& Hattie, 2002) They conclude that "time on research is related
to research productivity but not teaching effectiveness, whereas time on
teaching is not related to teaching effectiveness but may be negatively
related to research productivity." (p. 613).

While a faculty member may feel unfavorable about conducting
research in general, he or she would be motivated to do so nonetheless
because it is the socially desirable and normatively appropriate
behavior within his or her department or college states (Stanton,
Taylor, & Stanaland, 2009). With adequate resources available,
graduate assistants or time off, to assist in research activities, this
may heighten perception of the required research activity. Research
institutions readily provide such resources to their faculty members,
but this is rarely the case in teaching institutions. It is generally
known that the more peer-reviewed publications a faculty member has, the
more he or she is rewarded in merit increases, perks, or higher
salaries.

Hedrick, et.al (2010) stated that AACSB accreditation is a mark of
distinction for academic programs. They reported that the goal of
accreditation is to improve the quality of business programs, yet some
skeptics contend that the aim is to increase business faculty salaries,
perhaps at the expense of other academic programs. They found that
faculty at accredited institutions earn more, teach less, and produce
more research and that the research output is measured by refereed
articles. Supporting this aim is Levernier and Miles's (1992)
finding that faculty members at AACSB-accredited institutions earn
higher salaries.

The AACSB status tends to be a deciding factor in negotiating with
higher administration for facilities, talent maintenance, and talent
acquisition. One might expect the "publish or perish"
institutions to have the strongest subjective norms usually. Naturally,
from an institutional point of view, the research productivity of the
university's faculty results in increasing status of the
institution and in securing grant dollars. (Taylor & Stanton, 2009)
Perhaps is may be more prudent to examine the relationship between
faculty members' attitudes toward research and its impact on
teaching effectiveness.

The role of publishing in academia has been historically to provide
a venue for academic discourse and the dissemination of newly created
knowledge. But due to the new paradigm in business schools that are
AACSB accredited, seeking reaccreditation, as well as candidacy schools
for AACSB accreditation, AACSB Standards 10 and 2, define faculty as AQ
(academically qualified) and PQ (professionally qualified), academic
publishing has been even more highly prioritized. The result is to
require a higher percentage of faculty members to actively engage in
research and to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. Thus,
one can assume that this shift has resulted in a need to publish purely
for the sake of publishing to get the merit increases and/or higher
salaries. The findings of Taylor and Stanton's (2009) study of
faculty members in AACSB accredited business schools revealed that
faculty would spend less time in scholarly publication pursuits if it
did not have such a strong impact on their job security and that
securing a publication is often more important than providing a
contribution to the advancement of their business discipline.

Administrators also have increased publication expectations for
their faculty members with a trend toward more weight on scholarly
activities (Alshare, Wenger & Miller, 2007). It would appear that
teaching effectiveness has taken a back seat in administrators'
quest to close the loop. According to Roberts, Johnson, and Groesbeck
(2006), an increased emphasis on research and publications comes at the
price of placing less value on teaching. Their study found that newly
hired faculty at AACSB accredited institutions value research more than
established faculty members.

A substantial body of literature exists which has analyzed,
debated, and theorized about the research activity, teaching success,
and effectiveness. Jenkins (2004) conducted a review of the literature
through 2004 and did not find persuasive evidence that research improves
teaching. Bennis and O'Toole (2005) have stated that business
schools are measuring themselves almost solely by the rigor of their
scientific research rather than on good teaching in the classroom by the
faculty member and student interaction or outcome.

Corcoran (2006) reported that under AACSB "mission
driven" standards, three tiers of business programs have emerged,
namely doctoral, master, and baccalaureate levels. These institutional
differences are large and varied, but faculty perceptions are quite
similar, regardless of program tier. He stated that the common bind of
these diverse programs is measured less in terms of resources and more
in terms of a shared ethic of mission-driven excellence.

One of the most visible consequences of AACSB accreditation has
been an increased focus on research. AACSB, Section 3 and Section 2
states the following:

Thus, Standard 2 focuses on the body of IC (intellectual
contributions) that is produced by the school's faculty as a whole
with the goal of faculty maintaining currency in their respective fields
by developing research and theory (AACSB International, 2008, p. 47).
Herein are the terms used to justify maintenance of currency--AQ
(faculty with a doctoral degree) or PQ (faculty with a master's
degree and professional experience). With respect to IC expectations, it
clearly indicates that they should be in writing, categorized, and
prioritized (i.e., ranked) although they can be in many forms of output.

In the study by Smith, Haight, and Rosenberg (2009) that sought to
examine AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual
contributions and academic and professional qualification of faculty,
they found that an overwhelming majority of schools ranked peer-reviewed
journal articles as the most significant form of output; they conclude
that many schools are still applying antiquated standards in their
evaluation of faculty IC. IC is often translated as peer-reviewed
journal articles and that using this one-size-fits-all approach often
stifles creativity and deployment of faculty members in a manner that
best leverages their individual talents in support of the school's
mission.

One perceived consequence of AACSB accreditation is that the
character of the faculty changes in at least one respect: new hires
value research more. It is not clear whether or not this means they also
value teaching less. Faculty hired after accreditation do not believe
so, but established faculty do (Roberts, Johnson, & Groesbeck,
2004).

Terpstra and Honoree (2009) argue that an institution's formal
or public statement regarding the relative emphasis given to teaching
versus research may actually differ markedly from the actual relative
emphasis. They purport that the actual emphasis may be better addressed
by the reward structure in place. For example, an institution may
formally state that good teaching is of the utmost importance, yet the
organizational rewards (such as merit pay, tenure, promotion) may be
based primarily on research accomplishments. Their research on the
effects of different teaching, research, and service emphases on
individual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutions
revealed that the most common faculty emphasis was one that stressed
research. Larger institutions were more likely to emphasize research
(52%) than teaching (4%), whereas private institutions were more likely
to emphasize teaching (21%) than research (14%). The most common
emphasis for private institutions was one in which research, teaching,
and service was given equal weight (30%). Public institutions were more
likely to emphasize research (37%) than teaching (13%). (p. 171-172)
Although AACSB faculty members publish more research than non-AACSB, are
their salaries higher? Are they satisfied?

AACSB FACULTY SALARIES, SATISFACTION

Terpstra and Honoree (2004) concluded from their findings that
faculty are most satisfied with their jobs and pay when research and
teaching are given equal weight. Further, they found that institutions
that primarily emphasize teaching fare poorly in terms of faculty
teaching effectiveness, research performance, job and pay satisfaction,
and recruitment and retention. Their findings suggest that state
legislatures, higher education boards, accrediting bodies, and academic
administrators may consider changes that would allow faculty to focus
more exclusively on teaching and research.

Agarwal and Yochum (2000) suggested that, on average, there is a
$14,000 salary premium for finance faculty in AACSB schools. Levernier,
Miles, and White (1992) did an empirical assessment of AACSB's
Annual Salary Surveys (AACSB 1985-1991) and found additional positive
support for the accreditation premium. In addition, faculty perceive
that accreditation tends to be associated with a superior level of
resources that includes extensive library holdings and data-bases, lower
teaching loads, colleagues actively engaged in research, and greater
research funding. Faculty at AACSB accredited colleges and universities
have become accustomed to the "accreditation premium," the
compensation premium for being affiliated with an AACSB accredited
school of business. Likewise, administrators at such schools have also
become accustomed to the "accreditation premium" as reported
by White, Levernier, and Miles (2006).

With accreditation, salary gaps between existing business faculty
and newly hired academicians can be very large, and this can cause
problems with existing faculty and with university administrators. Not
insignificantly, faculty in other disciplines outside of business, who
do not like the salary gap as it is, may become even more upset when
market salaries for new AACSB-appropriate faculty starts to take place.

In Heriot, Austin, and Franklin's (2009) study to identify the
costs for initial AACSB accreditation, they state that the benefits
include certification of standards of excellent, signaling quality to
students, and higher faculty salaries (Pastore, 1989). At present, there
are 560 AACSB-accredited schools worldwide; however, there are more than
2,000 schools or college of business in the United States alone, with
thousands of more potential member schools worldwide (AACSB
International, 2009). They report that with AACSB accreditation comes an
annual increased operating cost, such as additional faculty,
professional development, etc. These two areas alone result in
significant costs. It also provides an external validation of quality of
faculty, current business curriculum, and continuous improvement.

In today's global environment, the quality assurance that
AACSB provides is likely to be more valuable than ever. Given the
multitude of business schools competing with each other around the
world, a well-established brand like AACSB is vital for schools to
demonstrate quality and can be a source of competitive advantage.
Lastly, AACSB accreditation is a framework and process that increases
the likelihood of a school meeting the needs of students, faculty,
employers, and other constituents. Nonetheless, AACSB accreditation is
obviously not the sole contributor to a school's success. Nor does
accreditation guarantee that a school will innovate all of its set goals
or satisfy all of its stakeholders according to Romero (2008).

Comm and Mathaisel (2003) found that satisfied employees are
important for organizational performance. They argue employee
satisfaction in higher education regarding workload, salary, and
benefits can be used to improve academic quality; nonetheless, they
reported that among faculty at a private college, most do not believe
they are fairly compensated.

Moreover, Crothers, Hughes, Schmitt, Theodore, Lipinski,
Bloomquist, and Altman (2010) report a difference in the job
satisfaction negotiation techniques of male and female faculty members.
They report that female faculty members earn significantly less than
male faculty members, even when they controlled for years of experience.
Females also reported a negative attribute of failed negotiations that
they associated with their gender and vice versa when negotiations were
successful.

In one study, Balkin and Gomez-Meji (2002) found that when male
management professors received less pay raise than they expected, they
tended to "quit" their institutions more so than their female
colleagues. On the other hand, Hurtado and DeAngelo (2009) using
"data from the U.S. Department of Education's 2005 Fall Staff
Survey," found that teaching load was a slightly stronger predictor
than salary when it comes to retention of senior women. Lee and Martin
(1996) found that switching jobs can affect satisfaction, too. When
faculty members switched jobs from a high-tier institution to a low-tier
institution, this can be a likely source of their pay dissatisfaction.

On the other hand, when Pfeffer and Langton (1993) investigated the
effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working
collaboratively, they found that the greater the degree of salary
dispersion within a department, the lower is satisfaction and research
productivity. They state that faculty members also will be less likely
to focus on collaborative research. The negative effects of wage
dispersion on satisfaction can be reduced by experience and scholarly
productivity in more developed fields.

Li-Ping, Tang, Sutarso, and Tang (2004) asked "Does the love
of money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction
relationship?" They answered yes! Faculty members who reported a
high-love-of-money had low satisfaction when they earned less than
$89,139.53 and more satisfaction when they earned more than $89,139.53.
Despite the fact the literature seems to be saying that AACSB accredited
business school faculty members produce more research and appear
satisfied with their salaries, this still leaves room for finding
answers to a few important questions.

IMPORTANT RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Are the faculty at business schools better off with AACSB
accreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--their
salaries? Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks,
regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a business
schools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank of
full professor more at AACSB accredited business schools? Does being
promoted to full professor add as much salary hygiene as AACSB
accreditation? Does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen pay
structure? Or does AACSB accreditation interfere with salary dispersion?

To answer these questions directly, a comparison of officially
reported budgeted salaries of business faculty teaching at AACSB
accredited schools of business against those that do not was made. The
AACSB publishes a host of reports on business faculty salaries. In fact,
each year there is an update on the national trends in business school
faculties' salaries. This self-report data comes from international
surveys administered by the AACSB that are completed by deans of member
and non-member institutions. But rarely is any outside organization able
to analyze this rich source of data for itself. The aforementioned
literature appears to support five null hypotheses in reference to the
research questions posed.

Research Hypotheses

Comparing actual salary data of business faculty's affiliation
with AACSB accredited business schools, their gender, and rank would
reveal a truer picture in business schools. The research objectives were
achieved by testing the following five null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relative frequency (or
percent) of Missouri collegiate school of business faculty members when
their gender was compared to their ranks.

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the relative frequency (or
percent) of Missouri business school faculty members when their rank is
compared based on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schools
vis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools.

Hypothesis 3: There is no difference between the means of business
schools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSB
regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at
the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

Hypothesis 4: There is no difference among the means of
instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full
professors regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are
earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between the means of males and
females regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are
earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.

METHODOLOGY

Measurement of Variables

Although some believe that in social science research ratio level
variables are "nonexistent," the dependent variable in this
study was faculty's salaries, which is a ratio measure, the highest
level of measure. Stanley Smith Stevens in 1946 in his article titled
"On the Theory of Scales of Measurement" proposed a theory
that there are four scales of measure: nominal, ordinal, interval and
ratio. Salary is a variable in possession of a non-arbitrary zero value:
there is such a thing as a faculty having "no" salary, even
among faculty members working. Some visiting professors will teach for
free, just to get the experience, at some schools. Although in this
study we found no faculty member who was earning a zero salary, salary
in our measure could be zero and the zero value is not arbitrary.

Sample, Data Collection, and Descriptive Statistics

The Secretary of State of Missouri provides access to all Missouri
employees' salaries, free of charge, on its website.
(http://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/2009-2010/default.asp) The 2009-2010
Official Manual is a comprehensive report on all the budgeted salaries
for Missouri State employees, which includes faculties' salaries.
Those persons who worked in a teaching or in a teaching-administrative
capacity for any of the State funded Missouri universities for 2009-2010
were listed.

Once the entire list of salaries for the ten universities was
printed out, the websites for each business schools was visited.
Business faculty members listed on the websites had bios and in most
cases photos of themselves. It was easy to code for gender based on
photos and references to themselves as he or she. Although collecting
and coding demographic and salary data this way took several days, it
proved to be a very rich source of data. Presented in Table 1 are
frequencies and percents of faculty members and administrators of the
ten universities with business programs selected for this study.
Sixty-four percent of the faculty members were male.

Nearly 38 percent of the faculty members were Full Professors, and
74.6 percent taught at an AACSB accredited business school or college of
business. Five collegiate schools of business selected for this study
were AACSB accredited and five were not AACSB accredited. Among the ten
schools of business sampled in this study, there were 311 total business
faculty--232 from AACSB accredited schools and 79 from non-AACSB
accredited schools of business. Additional demographic variables are
presented in Table 1.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY

Faculty members' demographic information was tallied by the
respective university in which they worked. Data were analyzed using
SPSS 15.0. The sample was deemed normally distributed because the sample
exceeded 100 observations (Henry, 1990). Of the observed variables, 311
were counted: 275 teaching faculty non-administrative and 36 had
administrative duties (directors, department heads or department chairs,
or deans) across all ranks and disciplines. After assessing the
descriptive data, the five null hypotheses were tested.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1

There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of
Missouri collegiate school of business faculty members when their gender
was compared to their ranks. A Chi-Square (p = .014) test shows the
observed frequency is not the same when gender was compared to rank,
with a critical value of 10.587 exceeding the 7.815 critical value found
in the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau
=.034 when gender represented the dependent variable, assuming a null
hypothesis. See Chi-Square findings in Table 2.

As can be seen in Tables 2, rank is better at predicting gender
frequency than gender is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explains
nearly 3.4 percent of the error in the gender variable. Therefore, rank
reduced the prediction error by 3.4 percent when gender is the dependent
variable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more above
the expected count. This evidence appears to confirm what is already
suspected to be true, that is, male and female business faculty members
are treated significantly different in the hierarchical structure of
salary in Missouri State funded institutions within the business
schools. Notice that male faculty members are significantly more
frequent as full professors and females are significantly more frequent
as instructors.

Hypothesis 2

There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) of
Missouri business school faculty members when their rank is compared
based on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schools
vis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools. A Chi-Square (p =
.016) test shows the observed frequency is not the same when faculty
ranks were compared to AACSB accreditation vis-a-vis non-AACSB schools,
with a critical value of 10.323 exceeding the 7.815 critical value found
in the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau
=.033 when AACSB/non-AACSB represented the dependent variable, assuming
a null hypothesis. Chi-Square findings are in Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 3, rank is better at predicting AACSB
frequency than AACSB is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explains
nearly 3.3 percent of the error in the AACBS variable. Therefore, rank
reduced the prediction error by 3.3 percent when AACSB is the dependent
variable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more above
the expected count. This evidence appears to demonstrate business
faculty members are more frequently promoted up the levels in the
academic hierarchy when the school of business is AACSB accredited.

Notice that full professors at AACSB accredited schools are
significantly more frequent than their counter parts at non-AACSB
schools. In fact, the non-AACSB full professor observed cell count of 18
is much below its expected cell count of 29.7. Faculty members at
non-AACSB schools appear to be stymied at the associate professor level
in the hierarchy as they are far less frequent in the full professor
expected count.

Hypothesis 3

There is a significant difference between the means of business
schools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSB
regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at
the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVA
results are shown in Table 4. The Eta Squared of .092 shows a moderate
effect.

Hypothesis 4

There is a significant difference among the means of instructors,
assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors
regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning at
the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVA
results are shown in Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c. The three Tukey's HSD
post-hoc comparisons showed all pair-wise comparison to be significantly
different at p. Hypothesis 5:

There is a significant difference between the means of males and
females regarding the actual salaries business faculty members are
earning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.
One-Way ANOVA results are shown in Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c.

DISCUSSION

Among administrators, the highest paid person was a dean earning
$191,872. The lowest paid administrator was an instructor serving as a
chair earning $45,658. Excluding the 36 administrators, the lowest
salary was an instructor earning $31,887; the highest salary was a full
professor earning $134,896. The highest modal earning was for four full
professors earning $110,000 each--all at AACSB accredited business
schools. Among the 206 faculty members teaching at an AACSB accredited
business schools, 76 were female with a mean salary of $72,820 and 130
were male with a mean salary of $84,807, a difference of $11,987. Among
the 69 faculty members teaching at non-AACSB accredited business
schools, 24 were female with a mean salary of $57,353 and 45 were male
with a mean salary of $68,696, a difference of $11,343. Male faculty
members at AACSB accredited business schools made an average earning of
$16,111 more than male faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business
schools; female faculty members at AACSB accredited business schools
earned $15,467 more than female faculty members at non-AACSB accredited
business schools. Male faculty members at AACSB accredited business
schools earned an average of $27,454 more than female faculty members at
non-AACSB accredited business schools; female faculty members at AACSB
accredited business schools earned an average of $4,124 more than male
faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools.

Female faculty members are earning significantly less than male
faculty members in general; however, female faculty members at AACSB
accredited business schools earn $4,124 more than male faculty members
at non-AACSB accredited business schools and $15,467 more than female
faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Male faculty
members are promoted to full professor significantly more frequently
than female faculty members; however, faculty members are more
frequently represented at the higher ranks at the AACSB accredited
business schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools, faculty
members are significantly concentrated at the instructor's level.

Salary among the faculty ranks at AACSB accredited business schools
is significantly higher. Salary at AACSB accredited business schools is
much higher between the genders and among ranks. It appears AACSB
accredited business schools are more hygienic than non-AACSB accredited
business schools when it comes to the salary, status, and security
hygiene factors. Therefore, the lack of full professors at the non-AACSB
accredited schools of business seems consistent with a weak or faulty
evaluation process directly affecting pay structure among the ranks at
these schools. It is difficult to determine just why non-AACSB business
schools seem to stifle the promotion to full professor. We can surmise
that since non-AACSB accredited business schools offer less of the
salary hygiene, job security hygiene, and status hygiene among the ranks
and between genders, they are more likely to have faculty who are
dissatisfied than faculty working for AACSB accredited business schools.

CONCLUSIONS

We can now provide answers to the aforementioned research
questions:

1. Are the faculty at a business schools better off with AACSB
accreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--their
salaries?

Yes! Faculty members working for business schools accredited by the
AACSB are better off than faculty members working for business schools
not accredited by the AACSB in terms of their salaries. Moreover, the 69
faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools (both male and
female) earned an average of $64,751; the 206 faculty members at AACSB
accredited business schools (both male and female) earned an average of
$80,394 or $15,593 more than faculty members at non-AACSB accredited
business schools which suggests an "accreditation premium."
These thousand dollar differences can translate into more than a million
dollars over an academic career. Furthermore, job status (rank) and job
security (tenure) hygiene were more prevalent at the AACSB accredited
schools; rarely is a faculty member promoted to full professors and he
or she does not have tenure.

2. Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks,
regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a business
schools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank of
full professor more at AACSB accredited business schools?

No! And, yes! Women are not being promoted as fast in the business
schools. Female faculty members were clustered in the instructor rank,
with a significant Chi-Square of p = .014. The expected count of 19.8
was exceeded by the observed count of 28 for instructors; however, the
expected count for male faculty members at the full professor level was
74.9 and the observed count was 86. For female faculty members, the
expected count for full professor was 42.1 and the observed count was
31. On the other hand, when a Chi-Square was run on AACSB accredited
business schools versus non-AACSB accredited business schools on rank,
the AACSB accredited business schools had a very high significant
frequency of full professors. In fact, the expected count was 87.3 and
the observed count was 99, with a p = .016. At the non-AACSB accredited
business schools, the expected count for full professors was 29.7, but
the observed count was only 18. This is pretty strong evidence that
AACSB accreditation is having a very strong influence on the
organization structure of the business schools, which includes
documentation of intellectual contributions of its faculty members, a
critical component of any tenure appointment and promotion in rank.

3. Does being promoted to full professor add as much salary hygiene
as AACSB accreditation?

Yes! The full professor average salary was $94,055 at AACSB
accredited business schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools,
the full professor average salary was $88,898, which is more than the
AACSB accredited business schools' overall salary average of
$80,394. It seems that if a faculty member can rise through the ranks to
full professor status; this promotion trumps AACSB accreditation status.
The problem is that it is much more difficult to become a full professor
at the non-AACSB accredited business schools. This is possibly due to
the fact that non-AACSB accredited business schools lack the imposition
of the AACSB standards that force these types of standardized evaluation
mechanisms into place.

4. Finally, does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen pay
structure or does it interfere with salary dispersion?

AACSB accreditation strengthens pay structure and improves salary
dispersion among the ranks! This accreditation apparently contributes to
a more stable pay structure and improves the salary hygiene across the
ranks. For all rank comparisons, the pay structure was obviously
stair-step (large salary increases as a faculty member moves up in
rank). This is why the Tukey's post-hoc comparisons were p< .001
on all paired comparisons. Associate professors at the AACSB accredited
business schools earn 91 cents to every dollar full professors earn;
however, at the non-AACSB accredited business schools, associate
professors earn only 79 cents to every dollar full professors earn.

Although female faculty at the AACSB accredited business schools
earn 85 cents to every dollar of what their male counterparts earn, they
still out earn on average what both male faculty and female faculty earn
at the non-AACSB accredited business schools. At the non-AACSB
accredited business schools, female faculty earn 83% of what their male
counterparts earn. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schools
earn $15,467 more than female faculty at non-AACSB accredited business
schools. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schools earned an
average of $4,124 more than male faculty at non-AACSB accredited
business schools.

Although the interpretations of the findings in this study are
limited to the ten publicly funded Missouri institutions sampled, the
findings confirm much of the puffery surrounding seeking and receiving
AACSB accreditation. Spending the resources to apply for and eventually
receive AACSB accreditation is apparently good for faculty across ranks
and gender. Even though female faculty earn 15% less than their male
counterparts at the AACSB accredited business schools, on average they
fare better than both male and female faculty at the non-AACSB
accredited business schools regarding the salary hygiene.

AACSB accreditation means that faculty will earn more money on
average, experience less dispersion in salary among the ranks, have a
much greater opportunity to be promoted to full professor, and the
business schools will be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status,
and job security. Over a career, especially for new faculty members just
beginning their careers, these annual salary differences can translate
into a million or more dollars in accumulated wealth, including
contributions to savings and retirement savings. Therefore, AACSB
accreditation really does make a big difference.

Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effect of wage
dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively:
Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38(3), 382-407.

Smith, K., Haight, G., & Rosenberg, D. (2009). An examination
of AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual
contributions and academic and professional qualifications of faculty.
Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 219-227.

Stanton, A., Taylor, R., & Stanaland, A. (2009). An examination
of the relationship between research attitudes and behaviors of business
school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 37-49.

The school's mission statement is appropriate to higher education
for management and consonant with the mission of any institution of
which the school is a part. The mission includes the production of
intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice
of business and management. (p. 21)